State v. Mantich

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

State v. Mantich

Case Number
S-16-0221
Call Date
November 1, 2016
Court Number
Douglas
Case Summary

S-16-0221 State v. Douglas M Mantich (Appellant)

Douglas County, Judge J. Russell Derr

Attorneys: Adam J. Sipple (Johnson & Mock) (Appellant) --- Melissa R. Vincent (Attorney General's Office)

Criminal: Felony murder

Proceedings below: This court vacated the life sentence imposed on Appellant in 1993 based on postconviction claims. On remand, the trial court imposed a sentence of 90-90 years for felony murder.

Issues: l. The trial court erred by imposing a de facto life sentence categorically prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article l, '' 9 and 15 of the Nebraska Constitution. A. Felony Murder is considered a non-homicide for purposes of Eighth Amendment sentencing analysis absent findings the juvenile killed or intended to kill. B. By making Mantich ineligible for parole consideration until the age of 64, and ineligible for release from his sentence until the age of 71, the sentence denies the juvenile offender a meaningful opportunity for release. II. In violation of Mantich's rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article One '' 9 and 15 of the Nebraska Constitution, the district court erred by imposing a sentence unconstitutionally disproportionate to his offense in light of Mantich's age, limited offense conduct, and proven reform. III. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider Mantich's youth in light of the principles and purposes of juvenile sentencing and instead imposing a sentence based on untenable reasoning. IV. In violation of Mantich's rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article One ' 3 of the Nebraska Constitution, the trial court denied Mantich's right to due process by failing to use adequate procedural safeguards to protect against arbitrary and capricious imposition of a sentence violating Mantich's substantive protection against cruel and unusual punishment. A. The district court erred by failing to make findings necessary to subject Mantich to the de facto life sentence imposed. B. The record does not show the district court meaningfully considered Mantich's age or how it impacted to legitimate penological objectives.